Chennai Court June 2000 Judgments
Seeni Alias Sundarammal Vs. Ramasamy Poosari and 2 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC74
ORDER1. I am satisfied that this is eminently a fit case, where the jurisdiction under Article 227 has to be exercised to quash the order passed by the lower court.2. The present CRP under Article 227 is to quash the order passed by the District Munsif, Virudhunagar, in O.S.No.254 of 1999 on 20.8.99. The facts of this case can be better appreciated reference is made to the various proceedings.3. The first respondent herein Ramasamy Poosari, S/o.Ramasamy alias Ramaiya Poosari, Irukkankudi Village, Sattur Taluk, filed a suit in O.S.No.49 of 1998, on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Sattur. In that suit, he impleaded 11 persons as defendants. The first defendant in that suit viz., Seem alias Sundarammal is the petitioner herein. The said suit in O.S.No.49 of 1998 was filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to the office of trusteeship of Arulmighu Mariamman Koil, Irrukangudi and for a consequential order to set aside the decree passed in O.S.No.188 ...
Tag this Judgment!A. Kasiammal Vs. Corporation of Madras by Its Commissioner Ripon Build ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC90
ORDER1. The petitioner has filed the Writ Petition No.10590 of 2000 to quash the impugned notice issued by the Corporation authorities wherein the petitioner has been directed to vacate the enforcement made by her in pavement 23, Thanga Salai. It has been further mentioned in the said notice that if there is any stay order already obtained, the petitioner should produce the same within three days. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sent a reply on 19.6.2000 stating that the petitioner had already filed a writ petition in W.P.NO.10860 of 1995 for a mandamus forbearing the Corporation of Chennai from removing the bunk run-by the petitioner in the pavement opposite to Government Press, Mint Street. Chennai, except by due process of law. This Court by order dated 16.8.1995 in W.M.P.No. 17258 of 1995 has directed the party to maintain status quo. Hence the present impugned notice is illegal and incontravention of the interim order of this Court granted in the earlier writ petition.2. It...
Tag this Judgment!N. Chelladurai Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu Rep by the Secretary t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC215
ORDER1. Aggrieved by the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents for the public purpose, namely, for formation of a Neighbourhood Scheme, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition.2. After taking me through the various averments in the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions: (1) The respondents have not conductedproper enquiry in terms of Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act (Central Act) and Rule 4(b) of the Land Acquisition Rules; (2) The local publication was not made in the Dailies having circulated in the locality where the land situates. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate, after taking me through the impugned proceedings as well as the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, would contend that the respondents have fully complied with the mandatory provisions of the said Act and Rules and there is no defect or error in the acquisition proceedings...
Tag this Judgment!M. Idayathulla and 8 Others Vs. the Deputy Commissioner/Executive Offi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC299
ORDER1. The petitioners in these writ petitions are lessees in respect of vacant lands of the respondent Devasthanam, measuring about 10 feet X 10 feet each in the elephant path (slaping path) in Palani Hills.2. Admittedly, the lease expires today. As, the respondent Devasthanam do not propose to extend or renew the lease any longer, by impugned notice dated 29.5.2000, required the petitioners to vacate and surrender vacant possession of the respective lands to the respondent Devasthanam on or before 1.7.2000.3. Aggrieved by the said notice dated 29.5.2000, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions to quash the same and to direct the respondent to renew the lease in favour of the petitioners at a reasonable rate of rent per month.4. Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan and Mr.K.Venkataraman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, contend that the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the respective lands for more than thirty years and that they are regularly paying the rent. It i...
Tag this Judgment!D. Sahul Hameed Vs. Swamy Nellaiappar Sri Kanthimathi Ambal Devasthana ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC232
ORDER1. The defendant in O.S.No.946 of 1989 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Thirunelveli is the appellant in the second appeal. The respondent temple filed the suit for recovery of possession of the suit property and for arrear of rent and future mesne profit at the rate of Rs.151 per month.2. The case as set out in the plaint is as follows:The defendant was the tenant of the plaint schedule property on a monthly rent of Rs. 75. The Municipality having raised the property tax, theplaintiff demanded rent at the rate of Rs.l51 per month from 1.1.1989. Therefore, the plaintiff sent notice of enhancement on 15.12.1988. On 28.12.1988 the defendant sent a reply seeking reduction of rent by the plaintiff apart from making certain other allegations which were all false. Quit notice was issued on 4.4.1989, to which there was a reply sent by the defendant through Counsel on 23.4.1989. In the reply the defendant had denied the title of the plaintiff in the suit property. The plaint...
Tag this Judgment!K. Mathivanan Vs. R.Jayalakshmi (Died) and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC213
ORDER1. Both appeals arise out of a common order passed by the learned District Judge, Thanjavur, in O.P.Nos.24 of 1992 and 48 of 1993. O.P.No.24 of 1992 was filed by the respondent in this appeal praying for appointing herself as guardian for the person of the minor Iswarya. O.P.No.48 of 1993 was filed by the appellant herein who is the father of the minor child, for directing the respondent to hand over the minor being the only daughter of the appellant to him.2. The respondent as originally impleaded, is the maternal grandmother of the child. Subsequently, on her death, the son of the respondent had been sought to be impleaded as the legal representative.3. According to the respondent, in her O.P.No.24 of 1992, it was contended that the appellant was married to her daughter by name Geetha on 31.10.1988 at Thanjavur. The appellant belongs to Coimbatore where his parents are living and he was employed at Delhi at the time of the marriage. He was subsequently transferred to Madras wher...
Tag this Judgment!Canara Bank Officers' Union Vs. Canara Bank
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2000
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ973Mad
P. Sathasivam, J. 1. Canara Bank Officers' Union represented by its General Secretary has filed the above writ petition questioning the promotion policy to Middle Management Grade Scale II and Scale III for the year 1990- 91 as per Memo No. 13/91, dated January 16, 1991, on various grounds. 2. The case of the union is as follows: According to them, the petitioner is a trade union, registered under the Trade Unions Act and it represents about 3,500 officer employees out of about 10,000 officer employees employed in the respondents bank. The respondent is a nationalised bank and is 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and therefore amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The respondent-bank in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and with the previous sanction of the Central Government have made Canara Bank (Officers) Service Regulations. Clause 17 of the Regulations provides that promotion to all the grades of officers in the bank shall b...
Tag this Judgment!K.A. Damodharan Vs. Tansi Furniture Works, a Unit of the Tamil Nadu Sm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-2000
Reported in: I(2001)ACC120; 2000(3)CTC222; (2000)IILLJ1077Mad; (2000)IIMLJ844
ORDERJudgment Pronounced by V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. Appellant herein is a workman working in the first respondent concern which is covered under the provisions of Employees State Insurance Act. The appellant met with an accident and lost his left eye. The accident took place on 10.6.1980. Under the provisions of the Act the Corporation assessed the liability on the basis of an application made before it at Rs.2.625 per day rounded of at Rs.2.63 per of day. This was on the basis of the fact that the appellant was blinded in the left eye. Under the Rules and Regulations and provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, the appellant is entitled to get the benefit called disablement benefit, which is payable to the appellant for the rest of his life, but periodically, that is probably every month. The appellant was not satisfied by this and therefore applied to the authorities by an application dated 7.7.1981 claiming a commutation of that per day payment of Rs.2.63 per day. In shor...
Tag this Judgment!Arvind C' Bhagat Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-2000
Reported in: 2000(122)ELT678(Mad)
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition by the learned single Judge of this Court, the appellant has comp up in this writ appeal. In the writ petition, the appellant had challenged the order of the second respondent dated 02.09.1998 whereby his application for renewal of Customs House Agent Licence was rejected. In exercise of the powers under Section 146(2) of the Customs Act, the Central Board has formulated Regulations under the title 'Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984'. These regulations deal with the subject of Customs House Agents, the manner of awarding licence to the Customs House Agents and the conditions on which the licence could be given and/or renewed. The licence is granted under Regulation 10 on an application under Regulation 5. The conditions are prescribed in Regulation No. 6. Regulation 12 provides the period of validity of a licence which is for five years and also provides that it can be renewed. Regulation 12(2) ...
Tag this Judgment!Rathinavel Vs. R.B.F. Nidhi Ltd., Gokhale Bhavan 8, West Cott Road Roy ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC218
ORDER1. Heard both sides. 2. It is brought to my notice that several members of public have deposited their money with the respondent Nidhi, which are alleged to have been diverted by way of loans without proper security, violating relevant norms and bye-laws of the respondent Nidhi as well as several provisions of the Companies Act. 3. Since five out of seven Directors of the RBF Nidhi Limited were arrested and two were absconding, necessary steps to take over the affairs of the Company in the larger interest of the depositors could not be postponed, the Company Board, the Ministry of Law Justice and Company Affairs, by proceedings dated 20.1.2000, exercising its power under Section 403 of the Companies Act, constituted a Board of Directors and thus, appointed six persons to hold the office of M/s. RBF Nidhi Limited with immediate effect therefrom. Accordingly, the respondent board is functioning and taking care of the affairs of the RBF Nidhi Limited. 4. The respondent board, conside...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »